Page 104 - Nick Begich - Angels Don't Play This Haarp Advances in Tesla Technology

www.earthpulse.com 97 www.earthpulse.com
Chapter Fifteen

THE TWELVE PATENTS OF APTI
TECHNICALLY TESLA

APTI held twelve patents, all of which were linked to Star Wars defense
systems. APTI was the main contractor on the first phase of the HAARP project.
These patents represented technologies which were inconsistent with the normal
activities of ARCO, the parent organization of APTI. In ARCO's 1994 annual
report, no mention of APTI OT the HAARP contract was found. Apparently ARCO
was not in the kind of technology and military construction contracting business
suggested by this technology. APTI was an anomalous subsidiary of ARCO, with
ARCO having no real expertise, outside of APTI, for developing these kinds of
patents.

This writer believes that ARCO did not want to be involved in the defense
industry development of these patents. After all, they were just looking for a
market for natural gas. Gas on the North Slope of Alaska was the issue for ARCO.
The cost of a pipeline and related facilities needed to move the gas to southern
Alaska was estimated at more than $20 billion, pricing the gas out of the market.
So APTI acquired the twelve patents and a potentially lucrative market.
The patents originally held by APTI are described below.

United States Patent Number 4,686,605
Issued: August 11, 1987
Invented by: Bernard J. Eastlund
Titled; "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's
Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere".

This patent was filed on January 10, 1985. On April 11, 1986, the Office of
Naval Research Code 308 in Arlington, Virginia sealed the patent application under a
"Secrecy Order" which forbade further work or any disclosure of information on the
patent. This, no doubt, concerned Dr. Eastlund and APTI. 155 The order was a standard
form letter stating provisions of the National Security Act that allowed the Defense
Department to seal the information. The penalties for disobeying it were spelled
out in the document, and included fines and long prison terms.

Patent examiner Salvatore Cangialosi of the U.S. Patent Office rejected the
application on November 28, 1986. According to the Summary of Action, "Claims
1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention as disclosed is
inoperative and therefore lacks utility."

On December 9, 1986 Dr. Eastlund and his attorney met with the patent
examiner to discuss the rationale behind the decision to reject it. On January 14,
1987, an amendment was filed which reduced the number of claims and provided
155 United States Patent Office Master File 06/690,333 (SC/Serial Number) on Patent No. 4,686,605.